All this organizational discussion is leaving out the role of Congress, which must both authorize and appropriate funds for any significant effort to organize SRM and CDR. As with so many discussions lately it all comes back to the need to mobilize the broadest possible coalition around scientifically driven climate and energy policy.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Instead of embedding a new group inside a bloated agency, seems best to > start a task force. > > Given my experience with DARPA, they'd work for specific goals on a > milestone basis with the clock running. They studied geoengineering the > Arctic years ago, acting under the DOD determination that such effects are > a national security issue. > > The best run group that could do strato aerosols is plainly the US Air > Force, which flies the KC-10 Extenders we would need, and has a half > century of experience. > > BTW, on CDR, why no ocean sequestration a la CROPS? This we know how to do > right now. > > Gregory Benford > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:18 AM, <rongretlar...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> List, cc John, Ken, Josh: >> >> 1. Apologies in advance for a too-long note. I think that how best >> to accelerate R&D on CDR is a topic that needs to be continued on this >> list. It needs to have an international side as well as a US (NASA, NOAA, >> etc) side. t needs an SRM component as well. But below, I restrict >> myself mostly to just US agencies and CDR >> >> 2. John's tale of NOAA is very sad. But I believe they should still >> be involved in CDR RD&D activities - the only subject raised by Josh in >> reporting the paper by Jim Hartung. >> Is there agreement that the same agency should not be in charge of >> both SRM and CDR? I have come to that conclusion - and the following is >> only on CDR - and only on the comments by Hartung at >> >> http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung >> >> 3. The next question for me is whether is whether one present >> existing US agency can or should handle the three main CDR approaches >> listed by Hartung: >> a. "... causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, >> b. "...expanding practices and technologies in farming and >> forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and >> c. "...fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants >> that consume and sequester CO2. >> >> 4. Hartung earlier also talks of 10-20 possibilities - and I have >> seen lists that get about that long. Notably missing are artificial trees >> (coupled with CCS) But note that part "b" has at least four major >> subsets: afforestation/reforestation, reduced tillage and similar Ag >> practices, BECCS, and biochar. Biochar has potential important >> interactions with all three others, as well as the weatherization and ocean >> topics, but that is getting too detailed for this note. >> >> 5. For biochar, the only US Federal agency doing much work now is >> the ARS part of USDA. I read of a small amount of satellite surveillance >> by NASA that can be helpful.. But I think the US biochar community would >> be much happier with USDA leading a crash effort than NASA. But we are >> talking here of something larger than biochar, which I only use as an >> example. >> >> 6. US federal agencies besides NASA and USDA and that have a >> potential role in biochar accelerated development are (alphabetically) >> DoC (international trade, rural economic development) >> DoD (military interest especially in biofuels, but also in >> hostility minimization) >> DoE (biochar should always have an energy production side; >> biomass now viewed mostly as biofuel source; numerous skilled national >> labs), >> DoI (already helping wind and solar placement; large land >> manager) >> EPA (with responsibility on licensing - and possibly on revenue >> collections) >> NCAR (a lead agency on the CO2 problem) >> NOAA (since ocean biomass can feed biochar) >> USGS (water and fire responsibilities) >> >> (Not intended as an exhaustive list. I am intentionally leaving >> out NSF, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and >> Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasuryand some >> others. Maybe too quick a cut on some of these?) >> >> 7. So I conclude, for reasons of speed and the complexities of CDR >> that President Obama shouldn't choose a single existing agency - even >> NASA. He has to either create a new agency or a task force. I doubt the >> former is possible any time soon, given the US political stalemate. >> >> 8. So I suggest his only near-time choice is a task force, with >> some newly assigned "Czar". Despite my reluctance to endorse NASA, I >> think Jim Hansen would bring the right background to this task. >> Alternatively, maybe John Holdren? There could be at least a thousand >> existing Federal employees "seconded" volunteers . Not working n the same >> building(s). >> The funding doesn't have to be proportional to where the new staff >> comes from. But they might need a million or so each (on average) of >> budgets (mostly from DoD?), but mostly staying, at least at first, within >> their existing agencies. A billion dollars in year 1, much for outside >> contracting - largely for in-place CDR research - not paper studies, would >> be a nice first year goal. The annual funding could largely come from >> removing existing fossil fuel tax breaks (about $4 billion per year, I see >> in one place). The funding for each CDR approach should not be equal - but >> rather be proportionate to present status towards rapid implementation. >> This could/should have a much more aggressive time schedule that >> that proposed by.Mr. Hartung. >> >> Again, sorry I got carried away. I just don't think we should let >> this CDR-advancement subject drop and am anxious to hear the views of >> others. I am perfectly fine with a similar (but not under one umbrella) >> program for SRM. Perhaps a single agency could handle SRM - but that is >> not the topic that Mr. Hartung and Josh have raised. >> >> Ron >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From: *"John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> >> *To: *kcalde...@gmail.com >> *Cc: *joshuahorton...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com, "John >> Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk> >> *Sent: *Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:03:53 AM >> *Subject: *Re: [geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort >> >> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> I was present at the launch of the NOAA updated report on the state of >> the Arctic at AGU in December*. >> >> NOAA has singularly failed in its mission: >> >> To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and >> coasts, >> To share that knowledge and information with others, and >> To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. >> >> It has failed to predict changes in the Arctic as regards sea ice, >> temperature and climate, and it has failed to predict the effect of Arctic >> amplification on polar jet stream behaviour, weather extremes and hence the >> climate of the Northern Hemisphere. They seem to have lacked understanding >> of the force and progression of the vicious cycle of warming, retreat of >> snow and sea ice with a reduction of albedo leading to further warming. >> >> If they do have this understanding, they have failed to share that >> knowledge with others. >> >> They have neither taken action or recommended action to cool the Arctic >> as required to preserve the Arctic coastal and marine ecosystem, which are >> threatened by the virtual disappearance of the sea ice at the end of summer >> during this decade, as can be determined from a simple extrapolation of sea >> ice volume. >> >> They have ignored the advice of arguably the world's top sea ice expert, >> Professor Peter Wadhams, on the above matters. >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> * At the press launch, a question was raised whether there was anybody in >> the room who knew about a proposal for geoengineering to cool the >> Arctic. I started to answer, but was told to shut up and was ushered out >> of the room! Thus NOAA are guilty of suppression of knowledge as well as >> the above failings! >> >> -- >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Ken Caldeira < >> kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote: >> >>> NASA's mission is to "pioneer the future in space >>> exploration<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exploration> >>> , scientific discovery <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science> and >>> aeronautics research." >>> >>> NOAA usually takes on operational tasks. They are typically not >>> considered an operational agency. >>> >>> Of course, the mission of various agencies can be modified. >>> >>> >>> PS. NOAA's misison is: >>> >>> To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and >>> coasts, >>> To share that knowledge and information with others, and >>> To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources. >>> >>> _______________ >>> Ken Caldeira >>> >>> Carnegie Institution for Science >>> Dept of Global Ecology >>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu >>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >>> >>> *Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.* >>> *http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html* >>> >>> Our YouTube videos<http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Josh Horton >>> <joshuahorton...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit >>>> more obvious... >>>> >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung >>>> >>>> Can NASA Stop Global >>>> Warming?<http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> - *30* >>>> - *4* >>>> - *8* >>>> - *11* >>>> >>>> LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the >>>> United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man >>>> on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. >>>> The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. >>>> From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on >>>> the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic >>>> growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and >>>> inspired people worldwide. >>>> [image: This illustration is by Dean Rohrer and comes from <a >>>> href="http://www.newsart.com";>NewsArt.com</a>, and is the property of the >>>> NewsArt organization and of its artist. Reproducing this image is a >>>> violation of copyright >>>> law.]<http://www.project-syndicate.org/default/library/63d5a3ba4ad86aa80fa43c0308d49e63.jpg>Illustration >>>> by Dean Rohrer >>>> >>>> Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of >>>> important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar >>>> system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space >>>> telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. >>>> These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures. >>>> >>>> But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching >>>> goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the >>>> agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to >>>> current needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it. >>>> >>>> Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important >>>> issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to >>>> remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission >>>> could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be >>>> completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate >>>> geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The >>>> second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the >>>> most promising technologies by 2025. >>>> >>>> Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last >>>> half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from >>>> roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up >>>> the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, >>>> the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per >>>> million in roughly 25 years. >>>> >>>> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this >>>> increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) >>>> over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this >>>> threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate >>>> change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the >>>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>> >>>> Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient >>>> to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world >>>> decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The *Massachusetts >>>> Institute of Technology >>>> estimates<http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf> >>>> *that, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will >>>> exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. >>>> According to a report by the professional services firm >>>> PricewaterhouseCoopers<http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/low-carbon-economy-index/assets/pwc-low-carbon-economy-index-2012.pdf>, >>>> even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the >>>> concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, >>>> triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over >>>> pre-industrial levels. >>>> >>>> So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor >>>> of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is >>>> needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to >>>> develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the >>>> atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from >>>> fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several >>>> reasons. >>>> >>>> Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system >>>> aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended >>>> consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will >>>> require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of >>>> planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring >>>> capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide. >>>> >>>> In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering >>>> experiment with unknown consequences. NASA’s international experience will >>>> enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most >>>> effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment’s risks. And >>>> NASA’s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize >>>> suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops – and >>>> the associated risks. >>>> >>>> The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and >>>> oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; >>>> NASA’s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these >>>> processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing >>>> rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in >>>> farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the >>>> ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2. >>>> >>>> Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this >>>> mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater >>>> focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to >>>> gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect >>>> Earth’s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes >>>> if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA’s greatest contribution >>>> to the world. >>>> >>>> We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering >>>> technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to >>>> ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin >>>> to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial >>>> opportunity to curtail global warming. >>>> >>>> Read more at >>>> http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung#Zga3mmzFMx8bcG38.99 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
